TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the possible views i.e., to treat the cash deposits as business receipts and to estimate the income at a percentage of the cash deposits or to make an addition of the entire deposits u/s 68. AO has deemed it fit and proper to treat the cash deposits as the business receipts of the assessee and to estimate the income thereon at 12%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 27.10.2014 is erroneous. By not bringing to tax the entire cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act, the assessment order may be said to have been prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. But, for a valid revision, both the conditions i.e. the assessment order being erroneous and also being prejudicial to the interest of the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 33,44,984/- in ING Vysya Bank Ltd, Siddipet. Further, developments in the case are submitted hereunder in chronological order: a. The scrutiny assessment was completed vide order dated 29.11.2011 estimating the business income at 5% on turnover of ₹ 37,09,685/- which includes the said bank deposits. Thus, the total income was determined at ₹ 2,07,961/- which includes bank interest of ₹ 3,931/-. b. The order ujs.143(3) was subjected to revision u/s.263 of the IT Act by the Hon'ble CIT-3, Hyderabad. The Hon'ble CIT set aside the assessment order vide order u/s.263 dated 30.01.2014. c. The assessing officer completed the set aside assessment vide order u/s.143(3) rws 263 of the IT Act dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond the appellant's control. It is therefore prayed that the delay may please be condoned and the appeal be admitted. What is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed at Hyderabad on this_25th day of April, 2017. Sd/- DEPONENT 2. The learned DR, however, opposed the condonation of delay and filed his objection in writing stating that the assessee was in receipt of the assessment order as well as subsequent notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, dated 22.2.2016 and show cause notice dated 6.5.2016 etc., and therefore, the reasons given by the assessee are not acceptable. 3. Having regard to the rival contentions and the facts mentioned in the condonation petition, we are s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the consequential order dated 1.6.2016 bringing a sum of ₹ 27,09,685/- to tax u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal against the second order of the CIT u/s 263 dated 31.5.2016 by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the Hon'ble Pr. CIT-7, Hyderabad u/s 263 of the IT Act is erroneous in law as well as facts of the case. 2. The Hon'ble CIT -7 ought to have observed that the order u/s.143(3) rws 263 of the IT Act dated 27.10.2014 was passed after taking into consideration the bank deposits appearing in the bank account and therefore the said order cannot be held as erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The Hon'ble CIT-7 ought to have noticed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the profit on the turnover at 12% since the assessee could not submit any details. Therefore, according to him, the Assessing Officer has accepted one of the possible views and thus the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, such an assessment order cannot again be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon various case law. He has also drawn our attention to the bank statement for the period 1.4.2007 to 24.10.2010 (paper book pages 4 to 14) to demonstrate that all his business receipts were deposited into the Bank and therefore, all the deposits have to be considered the turnover of the assessee a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the possible views i.e., to treat the cash deposits as business receipts and to estimate the income at a percentage of the cash deposits or to make an addition of the entire deposits u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has deemed it fit and proper to treat the cash deposits as the business receipts of the assessee and to estimate the income thereon at 12%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 27.10.2014 is erroneous. By not bringing to tax the entire cash deposits u/s 68 of the Act, the assessment order may be said to have been prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. But, for a valid revision, both the conditions i.e. the assessment order being erroneous and also being prejudicial t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
